Analysing Scale in Environmental Governance: The case of water governance in Europe

Transcription

1 Analysing Scale in Environmental Governance: The case of water governance in Europe Wiebke Grund 1, Frank Hüesker 2, Nicolas Jager 1, Timothy Moss 2, Jens Newig 1 Abstract: Environmental governance is beset by problems of scale. These relate principally to the mismatch between the geographical scales of environmental resources and the political jurisdictions responsible for their management on the one hand and the difficulty in determining suitable scalar levels for policy and management interventions on the other. Moreover, these problematic relations are rarely static, but subject to the dynamics of socioecological systems. This is particularly the case when a major policy initiative whether by intent or accident reconfigures the scalar structures and practices of environmental governance. The paper explores one such recent policy intervention the EU Water Framework Directive (WFD) which, it is argued, is radically reordering the scalar governance of water in Europe. To understand this process, it draws on several pertinent strands of conceptual literature on issues of scale and rescaling, categorising them according to common criteria and assessing their respective value for interpreting the WFD. The paper then analyses the existing literature on WFD to establish how far, and in what ways, it addresses these scalar issues, identifying knowledge gaps and opportunities for future research. Key words: Multi-level governance, institutional fit and interplay, rescaling of governance, scalar strategies, participatory governance. 1. Introduction: Problems of Scale in European Union Environmental Policy The achievement of substantive environmental goals and sustainability in general is closely intertwined with multifaceted scalar problems. Political or administrative levels of decisionmaking rarely match the geographical scales of environmental problems or ecosystems. Moreover, political systems are in themselves nested and, particularly in the environmental realm, subject to continuous transformations. In this context, the European Union has established itself as an important actor, driving the Europeanization of environmental policy (Johnson 2012). At the same time, counter-tendencies of downscaling political competencies to lower levels and of including non-state actors have become apparent (Jordan 2002; Schmid 2003). These rescaling processes pose important questions about the efficiency and effectiveness of environmental governance as well as its legitimacy and underlying power distributions. 1 Leuphana University Lüneburg, Workgroup Governance and Sustainability, Institute for Environmental and Sustainability Communication, Lüneburg, Germany. 2 Leibniz Institute for Regional Development and Structural Planning (IRS), Erkner, Germany.

2 - 2 - A particularly interesting case for illustrating the reconfiguration of European environmental governance is the European Union s Water Framework Directive 2000/60/EC (WFD). The WFD is the European centrepiece of legislation concerning the management of European water resources, introducing a new and innovative water management regime. The directive s overall aim is to reach good water status by 2015 (Article 4) for all European waters. The means to achieve this goal are to be conducted through an integrated river basin planning and management approach (Article 3), which establishes the natural entity of the river basin as the main spatial governance unit. More implicitly, spatial re-orientation is introduced product of the directive s requirements to open the planning and management processes to new actors and forms of participation. Article 14 of the WFD prescribes the information and consultation of the public and encourages its active involvement during the management process, generating participation and coordination across jurisdictions and geographical scales. The consequences of these scalar reconfigurations (Swyngedouw 2004; Moss and Newig 2010) for the effectiveness and, legitimacy of policy and for issues of equity and the balance of power among stakeholders have so far hardly been assessed, despite their potential importance for the European water management regime. This article aims to investigate scalar dimensions of the Water Framework Directive and their significance for water governance of the EU, assessing how these scalar dimensions have been addressed by WFD-related literature, identifying important research gaps and, finally, mapping out an agenda for further research. To this end, we will first develop an informed set of criteria that will allow us to explicitly characterise different scalar discourses relating to environmental governance. These criteria arise ultimately from our research interest in investigating the scalar aspects of environmental governance regimes. They will be used to examine scalar and multi-level environmental governance aspects in conceptual contributions in the academic literature from very different disciplines (section 2). Following this, we will identify and briefly discuss the scalar aspects explicitly and implicitly mentioned in the text of the WFD. Drawing on the above-mentioned criteria, we will then examine the scalar references to be found in the literature on the WFD and compare these to the conceptual baseline established before by the theoretical literature on scale (section 3). The article will be concluded by identifying core issues for a further research agenda (section 4). In so doing, this contribution sets out to systematically asses how far the general concepts and claims promoted in the diverse literature on multilevel and scalar (environmental) governance can help explain processes of scalar reconfiguration set in motion by the European Water Framework Directive. 2. Conceptual Approaches to Scalar Aspects of Environmental Governance 2.1. Categorising discourses on scale in environmental governance The notion of scale is used in numerous scientific contributions and as such its definitions vary considerably across various scholarly disciplines. Whereas some understand scale as a

3 - 3 - certain reified dimension to frame a particular problem (e.g. political, natural) (e.g. Dovers 1995; Evans et al. 2003), others rather employ the term to specify a certain spatial level (e.g. local, global) (e.g. Swyngedouw 1997). To avoid misunderstandings, we follow the distinction between the notions of scale and level (e.g. Cash et al. 2006; Moss & Newig 2010): Scalar dimension as an analytical dimension of a problem under study. Two different types of scalar dimensions are of particular importance, namely the biophysical (e.g. hydrological) and the institutional scalar dimension. Scalar level as a particular level on a scalar dimension (e.g. the level of a river reach within a river basin or of a municipality in a political-administrative system). (Moss & Newig 2010: 2). Environmental policy in this respect is facing a range of scalar problems. These pivotally stem from the scalar mismatch of biophysical, ecological processes and social, administrative structures or human activities (Cash et al. 2006; Folke et al. 1998; Gibbs et al. 2002; Görg & Rauschmeyer 2009; Meadowcroft 2002; Young 2002). Given the complexity of scalar and multi-level governance issues, it is our first objective to establish a conceptual baseline against which to assess the scalar references in the WFD literature. The starting point for this will be the different assumptions to be found in the conceptual scalar literature. However, to integrate these diverse sources and make them applicable for our purposes we compiled four categories inductively to distinguish and structure the scalar assumptions of various discursive streams. These categories were developed to reflect the core issues at stake in the joint research project on which this paper is based. 3 In a first attempt to structure different streams in the scalar discourse it appears helpful to investigate the ways in which different bodies of literature approach the issue of scale. Hence, this first category approaches to scale captures basic characteristics of the different discursive streams including scalar conceptualisation (static vs. dynamic), scalar dimensions (natural, administrative, etc.) and the main scalar issues covered. To assess the quality and success of any given policy or governance configuration it is indispensable to rely on normative criteria against which these can be measured. As a means of characterising debates on scalar aspects of environmental governance we will investigate which normative criteria are considered by different bodies of scale literature. The main question that arises in this category is how effectiveness and legitimacy are framed by the different approaches. It is one of the main concerns of governance research to investigate the configurations of state-society relations and to find meaningful ways to open up political decision-making mechanisms for non-state actors. This is reflected in the category of participation. Here, we will primarily examine the importance and role that is ascribed to public participation by the different bodies of scale literature. As a final category we address scale-related shifts in power relations, reflecting the politics dimension of environmental governance. The criterion will be instrumental in assessing the interrelations between power dynamics and scale from different perspectives. 3 For details on the project WaterScale, see

4 Conceptual discourse and issues of scale We now turn to various streams of academic literature on multilevel and scalar (environmental) governance and assess them through the lens of the categories sketched in section 2.1. Two bodies of literature, originating from very different academic disciplines, are particularly relevant. The first is the scale debate in human geography, the second the debate on multilevel governance in political science. Next to these pertinent streams of debate, concepts and arguments on multi-level and scalar governance can be found in contributions from a wide range of other schools of thought, many of which provide valuable insights for certain aspects of the scalar debate. We selected contributions on participatory governance and environmental institutions for the analysis. The following analysis of conceptual literature highlights the dominant issues of the debate. This will yield theoretically informed results about the relevance of scale in the present European water governance regime and moreover help to identify important aspects for future research. The main attributes of each stream of literature related to the four criteria are summarised in table 1. Table 1: Categories on discourses of scale in environmental governance and how these are addressed by relevant streams of literature Categories Stream of literature Authors Approaches to Scale Conceptualisation Dimensions Issues Normative Criteria Participation Power relations Scale debate in human geography Brenner 2001, 2004; Smith 1984, 1995; Swyngedouw 2000, 2001, 2010; Bulkeley 2005; Wissen et al Dynamic and constructivist perspective on scales; scalar configurations are outcome of socio-spatial power relations Primarily politicaladministrative scales; these scales transform natural scales Scales and global economic system, scales and power, scales and environmental governance Critical appraisal of scalar politics; social and environmental justice, equity No specific scale theory on participation, radical geography interested in deliberation of local actors Rescaling processes, related shifts in power relations and (multi-) scalar strategies of actors central to analysis Multi-Level Governance Scharpf 1997; Dahl 1994; Benz 2006; Hooghe & Marks 2003; Peters & Pierre 2005 Mostly static scales (Type I multi-level governance systems), partly dynamic (Type II systems) Spatial scales, administrative scales Interaction of institutions on different scales; emergence of new, taskspecific institutions; fit of specific institution with the institutional setting Scale-related trade-off between legitimacy and effectiveness Inclusion of non-state actors from multiple levels as a means of generating effectiveness and legitimacy National state loses power, non-state actors and supranational and subnational levels gain power Participatory Governance Newig & Fritsch 2009; Koontz 1999; Schmitter 2002 Static scales Natural and administrative scales Finding the appropriate scale for participatory decision-making according to the problem at stake Combining ecologically effective and democratically legitimate decisions Like multi-level governance, interest in influence of scale choice on participation Choice of scale can shift power relations between stakeholders Environmental Institutions Ostrom et al. 2002; Folke et al. 2005; Adger et al. 2006; Young 2002 Static scales Natural and administrative scales and time scales Fit, interplay, institutional redesign, upscaling of successful local CPRmanagement strategies Effectiveness in the sense of sustainability, also efficiency and equity Participation can facilitate cross-scale interplay Strengthening of local and global scales as arena for decision making, weakening of the national scale

5 - 5 - The beginning of the scale debate in human geography dates back about thirty years, addressing the scalar configuration of the global economic system and its attributes (e.g. Taylor 1982; Smith 1984). The debate later on focused on the issue of scale and power. Compared to the first period this debate on scale focuses less on the attributes of a static scalar configuration but rather on the contested processes of scalar production, termed scaling and rescaling (Schmid 2003). Regarding its conceptualization, theorists of these two strands represent in general a dynamic and constructivist understanding of scales. Scales are conceptualized as socially constructed, changeable by humans and not connected to territorial conditions (Brenner 2004). Looking at the criterion scalar dimensions, the political and the administrative dimension of scales is therefore dominant compared to the natural (e.g. hydrological) dimension, which is conceived to be merely one spatial element of the societal construction of scale (e.g. Swyngedouw 2001). Scalar theorists in these strands of human geography often represent a critical approach to scalar issues. The central concept is the politics of scale, which refers to the struggles around the social production of scales (rescaling). Authors like Swyngedouw (2000) and Wissen et al. (2008) are often advocate participatory, democratically legitimate, socially and environmentally equitable policy models. Their core issue is the shifting of power relations. Rescaling in processes of spatial re-dimensioning can either consolidate or shift power relations or serve an emancipatory function. This is due to the fact that different state and societal actors try to strengthen their respective position through rescaling by adopting specific scalar strategies. Thus, the abolition of existing scales or the production of new ones is understood as a way to institutionalize powerful interests. In this sense, rescaling leads to the redistribution of interests, problem definitions, power relations and institutional arrangements and can open up or obstruct options for emancipatory policies (for an overview: Wissen 2011). Scalar theories have been criticized for being imprecise with regard to the theoretical distinctions between space and scale (Brenner 2001). They have also been seen as rooted in hierarchical thinking, blind to horizontal spatial relations (Marston et al. 2005). Additionally scalar researchers have identified a lack of empirical studies as a key gap in the literature and suggest the examination of scalar practices, conflicts between actors, inconsistencies between old and new scales etc. (e.g. Wissen 2011; Gualini 2006; Swyngedouw 2010). Today we can see an orientation of scalar theorists towards issues of political ecology (e.g. Bulkeley 2005; Köhler 2008; Reed & Bryneel 2010; Norman et al. 2012; Johnson 2012). This new group of authors asks how rescaling processes as described - are instrumental to successful environmental governance. Water resources regulated across diverse political-administrative scales are therefore the subject of rescaling processes and scalar configurations, but as yet not many authors have connected water resource regulation to scalar theory. Scales are also central in political science studies on multi-level governance. Multi-level governance means political structures and processes transcending the boundaries of territorial governance units to resolve interdependencies of social development and political decisions, which exist between the different territories (Benz 2006: 95, translation by the author). Thus, this strand of research is primarily concerned with institutions and decision-making processes at and between different governance levels (e.g. Scharpf 1997; Benz 2006; Bache & Flinders 2005).

6 - 6 - Multi-level governance research differs from the scale debate in human geography in its scalar conceptualisation. It perceives scales, or levels, traditionally as static in the sense of given territorial administrative units (e.g. EU, nation state, municipality) and their subordinate levels. These are conceived as non-intersecting and typically general purpose jurisdictions. Hooghe and Marks (2003) characterise these systems, which are often found in federal systems, as Type I multi-level governance systems. More recently, emphasis has been placed on more flexible and task-specific governance institutions. These Type II multi-level governance systems are often geared to natural or cultural spaces and thus cross Type I entities (Hooghe & Marks 2003; see also Blatter 2004). Type II systems are perceived by some to be better equipped for the management of present environmental problems. Meadowcroft, for instance, argues that a mosaic of institutions, with different and partially overlapping geographic and temporal loci, is best equipped to address effectively the complexity of environmental issues" (2002:178). As the WFD is organized according to river basins which cross administrative levels, the governance system introduced by the WFD is an illustrative example of Type II multi-level governance systems. Despite its origin in the realm of political science, power distributions and their dynamics are, though not neglected, only of subordinate interest in multi-level governance research, which can largely be attributed to the problem-solving bias in governance research (Mayntz 2005). Of key concern in multi-level governance research are the interrelations of effectiveness and legitimacy with regard to the scalar level on which decisions are taken. Under the notion of the democratic dilemma between system effectiveness and citizen participation, Dahl (1994) describes the phenomenon that capacities for effectively solving present social, economic or ecological problems are inversely related to the degree of democratic and participatory involvement during decision-making processes. Taken to an extreme [ ], the paradox would pose a choice between a tiny unit in which citizens could exercise perfect democratic control [ ] or a world government necessary for preserving life on the planet by preventing acute environmental degradation, but over which citizens had only symbolic democratic control. (Dahl 1994:28) Contributions from the participatory governance literature add interesting facets to the scalar governance discourse. Based on the problems stemming from the democratic dilemma, some authors highlight the possibilities of formal or informal participatory involvement in decision-making procedures to overcome or at least mitigate these problems (e.g. Leach et al. 2002). Decisive in this respect is the identification of the appropriate scale or level for participatory decision making based on the problem at stake. This shall in turn enable more democratically legitimate decisions that are at the same time also ecologically effective through greater buy-in of participants and thus enhanced implementation (Newig & Fritsch 2009). The choice of the appropriate scalar level for a certain participatory decision-making process may affect the power relations between stakeholders. Koontz (1999), for example, found that the choice of a certain level for state-stakeholder interaction directly influences the structure and power potentials of actors involved and therefore also the decision outcome (see also Schmitter 2002; Parkinson 2003; Fürst et al. 2006; Hein et al. 2006). Other authors, such as Cheng and Daniels (2003) emphasise how place-based knowledge of participants and processes of individual sense-making at different spatial scales affects the credibility and legitimacy of outcomes. Yet, empirical evidence on the dynamics between participation in multilevel settings and the quality of decisions, both in terms of effectiveness and legitimacy, is still ambiguous (Newig & Fritsch 2009).

7 - 7 - The environmental institutions literature focuses strongly on the interaction of, and tensions between, administrative and natural scale dimensions. As environmental problems and their causes differ often significantly in their underlying spatial dynamics from political and administrative scales ( pollutants do not stop at borders ) spatial misfits emerge between these two scalar dimensions. This in turn may lead to ineffective and unsustainable political practices. In the context of the project Institutional Dimensions of Global Environmental Change (IDGEC), Oran Young and others dealt with these scalar tensions by drawing on research on social-ecological systems (e.g. Berkes and Folke 1998). The key strategy to cope with this misfit is to match natural and administrative scales. [T]he presumption is that the closer the fit between ecosystems and institutional systems, the better the relevant institutions will perform, at least in terms of sustainability (Young 2002: 20). This match can be achieved by new forms of cooperation and information management, which are termed institutional interplay. Institutional interplay is required within a given scalar level (horizontal) as well as across levels (vertical) (ibid.). However, practices of interplay are rather ambitious and demanding and as such tend to increase transaction costs and reduce accountability (Paavola et al. 2009; Ostrom et al. 2002). Ways to compensate for these potential losses are seen in the emergence of bridging organisations that may take over responsibilities of translating knowledge for political action (Folke et al. 2005). Criteria for successful governance are both ecological effectiveness and democratic legitimacy. Adger and colleagues additionally propose efficiency and equity as economic and social criteria for good environmental decisions (2003: 1098 f.).similar to the contributions from participatory governance research, the local level plays a prominent role as the source of indigenous knowledge and a better understanding of the local environment (Voß et al. 2006; Berkes & Folke 2002). 3. The EU Water Framework Directive and Politics of Scale After having identified the relevant scalar approaches to environmental governance, we will now briefly introduce the scale-relevant regulations and scalar implications of the WFD text. With this in mind, we then turn to an in-depth analysis of the potentially scale-related literature on the WFD, interpreted in terms of the above criteria Scalar Dimensions of the WFD The European Union s Water Framework Directive (WFD), issued on December 22, 2000, poses a prime example for the scalar reorientation and reorganisation of EU environmental policies. The WFD alters the European water management regime in multiple ways (see Figure 1 for an overview). A first, fundamental transformation lies in the institutionalisation of the river basin as the basic unit of water planning and management. Article 3 requires the coordination of administrative arrangements within river basin districts. In most member states, this adds a new, hydrological level to their existing structure of regional and local level. These transformations

8 - 8 - pose, despite different institutional settings across the different member states, a particular challenge for the present administrative configurations as not only new scales but also the attached new management practices have to be accommodated (see problems of scalar fit in Fig. 1). This may lead in turn to problems of horizontal interplay. Figure 1: Scalar Dimensions of the EU Water Framework Directive A further important aspect introduced by the WFD is the transfer and reorganisation of decision-making capacities in the regulatory context of European, national and sub-national levels. Principally, the directive demands in its Preamble (No. 14) the close cooperation and coherent action at Community, Member State and local level. This cooperation shall be enabled through both, measures of standardisation (e.g. problem definitions (Article 2), environmental objectives (Article 4)), and of intended diversification and localisation (e.g. subsidiary principle (Article 18), preference of regional and local solutions (Article 13). The directive s strong focus on harmonization and coherent implementation, as witnessed by the goal to reach good water status Europe-wide and by the creation of a Common Implementation Strategy, producing dozens of guidance documents, is an indication of a certain upscaling of governance towards the level of the European Union. Problems stemming from these transformations may be subsumed as problems of vertical interplay (see Fig. 1). Finally, the WFD established new processes of public involvement on a variety of levels mandating or encouraging the participation of non-state actors in the production of river basin management plans. Article 14 states that both the public and all interested parties are to be

9 - 9 - considered in the implementation of the directive. While the information and consultation of the public is compulsory, the active involvement of stakeholders, that is the actual participation in the decision making process, is only encouraged by the directive. However, this enables societal as well as government actors to engage in multi-scalar strategies, meaning simultaneous action on multiple levels (see problems of rescaling in Fig.1). This may in turn improve the chances of these actors to influence the decision-making processes according to their goals. All these innovations have in common that they affect the scalar and spatial organisation of the social, political and economic processes that together constitute the European water governance regime and as such have initiated a rescaling process of this regime Scalar Issues to the Implementation of the Water Framework Directive In this chapter we present how the different scalar aspects described in chapter 2 are reflected in the social science discourse on the WFD and the implementation of its provisions. As there is an abundance of secondary literature on the WFD, we only included those texts that we found through a standardised selection procedure. A combined internet search in the social sciences databases Scopus, Google Scholar, BASE and various library databases for the keywords Water Framework Directive plus scale, rescaling, multi-level, institutional, spatial, fit or participation yielded about 180 results. Out of these texts we selected those 59 contributions that contained thematic references to issues of scales and levels and included these in our analysis. During this analysis we collated the scalar references contained in the different texts and ordered these according to the categories developed in section 2.1. This categorisation was further refined by the aggregation of contributions that raised the same issues into several sub-categories. These together display the state of the scalar discourse around the WFD and are outlined in the following. In general, our research has shown that there are only few articles in the body of WFD secondary literature that explicitly address issues of scale or that make scales central to their research (e.g. Borowski et al. 2008; Dworak & Pielen 2006, Huitema & Bressers 2006; Moss 2003; 2004; Thiel 2010; Johnson 2012). Most other contributions touch on aspects of scale only in an implicit way, while the main scientific interests of these centre on different issues. Our analysis makes use of both explicitly and implicitly considered scalar references. This will allow us to draw a more nuanced and comprehensive picture of the role scales play in the European water governance regime. Category 1: Approaches to Scale In the secondary literature the implementation of the WFD is mainly described technically as the political-administrative implementation of practices of river basin management and the respective institutions. Only few authors reflect on whether the scalar conceptualisations are static or dynamic (e.g. Huitema & Bressers 2006; Thiel 2010). Literature on WFD implementation regarding scalar issues mostly addresses the initiation of a new, hydrological scale into established mechanisms of environmental governance and the resulting coexistence of administrative and natural scales. The political significance of reor-

10 dering water protection policy and practice around the natural geography of a river basin and not solely around sovereign states and their sub-units is emphasised by several authors (e.g. Johnson 2012). A number of contributors address the problems of fit between the (often new) governance structures around the river basin and those oriented around political-administrative territories that were in place before (see e.g. Albrecht 2013; Bratt 2004; Dombrowsky 2007; Liefferink et al. 2011; Moss 2003; Medd & Marvin 2007; Rauschmeyer et al. 2009; Watson et al. 2009). The general argument that forms the basis of this debate is that, although the initiation of new institutions on natural scales solved misfits within the water sector, it created new spatial misfits with existing institutions elsewhere, leading to considerable challenges of how to integrate these diverse scales with diverging internal logics (Moss 2003; Rauschmeyer et al. 2009). Although these issues are widely acknowledged, only few contributors try to identify pathways to overcome these. Emblematic in this sense is the contribution of Watson et al. (2009), who argue for working processes and mechanisms of interaction, communication and negotiation to cut across spatial and organisational boundaries to overcome these misfits. These mechanisms are, according to Medd and Marvin (2007), well addressed by intermediaries because [t]hrough their different forms of working and organizational arrangements they work across different scales, different regional spaces (ibid: 326). Beyond the debate on scalar misfits, the introduction of the river basin management approach has also geared discussion on the appropriateness of this ecologically intended, participatory and basin-orientated policy model. While many contributions reflect positively on and endorse this new governance mode (see e.g. Grünewald 2008; Petschow 2002), a few authors question the appropriateness of natural scales as the only spatial reference point for water management. In this respect, critique is raised by v. Keitz and Kessler (2008), who regard water management on natural scales as effective and appropriate only for some particular issues (e.g. floodwaters, upstream-downstream conflicts), whereas other issues may be better dealt with at different scales. Principally, they argue, the territorial unity of politicaladministrative scales should not be abandoned without necessity (ibid.). A similar position is taken by Green and Fernandez-Bilbao (2006) in their article on the definition of a competent authority. They argue that not the structure, but rather the effectiveness of an institution determines its suitability. This effectiveness, in turn, depends mainly on internal restraints of information and communication and there may be "no reason why these internal constraints should result in an institution whose boundaries coincide with the physical system that it seeks to manage" (ibid: 68 f.). As the above analysis has shown, the secondary academic literature on the WFD deals mainly with two aspects regarding the new scalar approach to water management introduced by the WFD: the issue of misfit between administrative and natural scales as well as the appropriateness of the new governance approach are at the centre of this debate. However, despite the attention these issues could gain, the scalar analysis of the WFD water management regime does not meet the theoretical depth and degree of differentiation developed by the conceptual discourses on scale summarised in 2.2.

11 Category 2: Normative Criteria Normative criteria are, despite their prominence in the WFD literature, only rarely set in the context of issues of scale. Where this happens, the discussions evolve mainly around effectiveness or legitimacy, without a combination of both criteria. The main concerns in this category again revolve around the misfit of administrative and natural scales. As Moss (2003) highlights, this misfit affects both the legitimacy and effectiveness of river basin management mechanisms. As river basin authorities are territorially distinct from local or regional governments that are constituted by democratic elections, they are not accountable to them. Hence, the WFD-initiated reorganisation of water planning competencies from local governments to river basin authorities may create new gaps in the political legitimacy chains that further detach this substantial part of environmental planning from the constituency (see also Andersson et al. 2012). Furthermore, it can create new boundary problems with implications for regime effectiveness.. Solving boundary problems within the immediate institutions of water management creates new boundary problems with other policy fields which have a major impact on water use, such as urban development, agriculture, forestry, transportation and energy (Moss 2003: 5). This mismatch can act as a barrier for cooperation between institutions organised along different spatial rationales and may thus in turn result in ineffective management procedures (ibid.). The democratic dilemma identified by Dahl (1994) is also reflected in the WFD secondary literature. Malzbender (2006), for example, recognizes a trade-off between local citizen participation and effective decision-making. Although participation at the local level in his view is likely to generate more responses from local stakeholders and ultimately leads to a better buy-in of the people directly affected (ibid: 106), it also requires more extensive human and financial resources. This in turn reduces the efficiency of the process. The regional or basin level in his view could constitute a compromise between local and national participation (ibid.). In a similar vein, Lundqvist (2004) in his analysis of the Swedish proposal for WFD implementation identified a tension between effectiveness, participation and legitimacy that he framed, relying on Hirst (2000), multi-level governance trilemma. Similarly to Malzbender, he arrives at the conclusion that one of the dimensions dominates over the others: In term of the trilemma, [ ] creating an integrated multi-level water-based system of governance to enhance effective water management comes at a cost in terms of participation and legitimacy (Lundqvist 2004: 422). Summarising the above raised, it becomes obvious that normative criteria are dealt with only by some contributors in terms of scalar aspects. The main issues addressed focused on different variations of the democratic dilemma that are also to be found in the WFD discourse. Noteworthy, however, are the contributions that illustrate how problems of misfit between administrative and natural scales influence the legitimacy and effectiveness of the new governance mechanisms. Category 3: Participation Public participation is one of the basic principles of the WFD and as such a major topic in the WFD literature. However, issues of scales and levels are typically discussed only implicitly. Again, key issues revolve around the appropriate governance level for public involvement,

12 and problems of participation resulting from the misfit between the administrative and natural scales of governance. The appropriate level for participatory processes is a concern for many authors, leading to several perspectives on the issue. Some contributors stress the importance of spatial proximity of people to the hydrological issue at hand and, hence, argue for participatory processes organised at the local level. For example, Woods (2008: 260) argues that the participation process is more likely to be successful when the public can relate to the boundaries, scale and local nature of the issues. Similar views were expressed by Loubier et al. (2005) and Jonsson (2005) in case studies in France and Sweden, where citizens were more willing to participate in the implementation of the WFD if this process was conducted at the local rather than the regional or national level (Loubier et al. 2005; Jonsson 2005). However, a preference for local level participation is not shared unanimously in the WFD literature. Whereas the arguments presented above concentrate on citizens and the lay public, many authors considering organised interests reach a different conclusion. Although local processes have the advantage of spatial proximity to the natural environment, they are, due to their number and intensity, also rather demanding for organised actors in terms of human, financial and also time resources. In a Swedish case study on WFD implementation, Hagberg (2010) finds that the multiplicity of participation opportunities on different levels leads to problems of capacity on the part of non-state actors, particularly NGOs. With particular regard to the local level, Kastens and Newig (2008) observe in a Northern German case of participatory WFD implementation that environmental NGOs local capacity to participate meaningfully is limited as they rely on volunteers. Instead, environmental NGOs can bundle their competencies at higher administrative levels where they can negotiate with other stakeholders on equal terms. These findings challenge the particular appropriateness of the local level as the reference point for public participation and point to the particular structural conditions of each level. Other authors set the different levels further into context by dealing with the issue of interrelatedness (see e.g. Blomquist et al. 2005; Patel & Stel 2004). In their comparison of public participation in nine European River Basins, Patel and Stel (2004) found that successful participation on the local level is largely dependent upon the actors involved, both at the higher and lower level. Drawing on extensive literature on decentralisation from a political science perspective, the authors highlight that successful participatory governance is not merely reached by assigning greater competencies to the local level, but rather that the local population need to be given a role within a wider decentralising process of the country as a whole (ibid: 7). Similar to the scalar issues raised above, the misfit between the administrative and natural scales of governance is an aspect that is also considered in the WFD literature on participation. The debate about misfits and their consequences for participatory water management follows an analogous pattern to the discussion above. It is recognised that the WFD not only alleviates existing misfits by introducing river basins as reference points for water management; it also creates new misfits with the existing administrative structures (e.g. Borowski et al. 2008). For instance, local watershed-based participatory planning processes in WFD implementation typically intersect with existing administrative scales. As Kastens and Newig (2008) illustrate from their Northern German case study, the fact that multiple counties intersect with the collaborative watershed planning unit led to the participation of stakeholder rep-

13 resentatives from each county, thus inflating the collaborative group to an extent that constructive work became difficult. Proposed responses to these challenges of misfit rely on similar arguments as mentioned before: water management should take place on levels that fit both hydrological as well as administrative units; yet, as a perfect fit between natural and administrative scales is unlikely in most cases, the importance of institutions that bridge different scales and enable social learning is stressed (see e.g. Borowski et al. 2008). Considering these strands of research on participation and scales in the WFD literature, it becomes apparent that scale is mostly a side issue in the discourse. The main issues raised focus on the questions of the adequate level for participation and the issue of misfit between natural and administrative scales. Hence, the WFD discourse on participation leaves aside many of the aspects raised by the conceptual scale literature. In particular, neither scaledependent interest configurations nor the potentially instrumental value of participation to facilitate cross-scale interplay and to bridge the misfits between administrative and natural scales are reflected in the secondary literature. Category 4: Power Relations The dynamics of power relations and distribution are major topics in political scientific research and as such also gained considerable attention in the secondary literature on the WFD. Depending on the researchers theoretical perspectives, the issues of power relations are approached from different angles: whereas some focus on the reconfigurations of institutions and interests, others point more directly to the resulting redistribution of power. A few authors even highlight multi-scalar strategies of specific actors. Generally, the WFD discourse is dominated by analyses that only implicitly draw on these aspects, although there are some contributions explicitly dealing with scalar issues (Huitema & Bressers 2006; Moss 2003; Thiel 2010). Institutional reconfiguration serves as one of the prominent topics in the political WFD implementation literature and as a major approach to the underlying dynamics of power relations (see e.g. Moss 2003). To understand the new decision structures it is important, following Kaika and Page (2003), to understand who participates when on which scale. Thereby it can be assumed that in analogy to general processes of state transformation (from government to governance), a multiplicity of involved actors, centres of power, scales and interests evolve (ibid.), which may lead in turn to a fragmentation of the institutional configuration of European water policy (Fichter-Wolf 2009; Asquer 2009). As a consequence of this new polycentricity, induced by institutional change on every relevant scale, new requirements arise for coordination and communication between affected actors and institutions (Green & Fernandez-Bilbao 2006; Lundqvist 2004). The prominent consensus principle behind the WFD increases this trend additionally (Bruns 2007). Apart from these institutional impacts, the WFD has initiated together with the river basin management approach also a reconfiguration of ranges of interests. Vreugdenhil et al. (2010) distinguish different interests through a typology of explicitly scalar perspectives on integrated river basin management (although without direct reference to the WFD): ecological, hydrological, bio-geomorphological and economic interests besides the interests of engineers, river managers, planners and regulators. In the WFD literature economic interests and

14 problem-solving mechanisms are emphasised as stemming from the introduction of the cost recovery principle (Bongaerts 2002; Steyaert & Olivier 2007). Authors analyse which measures could be implemented on which scale in the most efficient way from an economic point of view (Huchtemann 2007; Dworak & Pielen 2006). This economy-oriented perspective, however, is often at the expense of the other above mentioned interests, especially the environmental paradigms of the WFD (Bongaerts 2002). Other authors emphasise the increasing prominence of natural scientists in the implementation process, articulating their own preference for a basin-oriented approach to addressing ecological issues (Steyaert & Ollivier 2007). Where the redistribution of power relations is directly addressed in the literature on the implementation of the WFD this is mostly done by analysing the shifting power positions of individual actors. However, as diverse authors relate to very heterogeneous implementation contexts, many different opinions of power dynamics exist. While some researchers like Kaika and Page (2003) or Huitema and Bressers (2006) in their Dutch case study suggest a strengthening of the European and regional levels at the same time, for others such as Thiel (2009) and Asquer (2009) it is rather the nation states that could gain influence at the expense of the regional levels, at least in the Portuguese and Italian cases. Particularly for Germany different authors identify the traditional administrations on the level of federal states as increasingly important at the expense of local actors (Brackemann et al. 2002; Moss 2003; Fichter-Wolf 2009). Still other contributors, like Petschow (2002) and Bruns (2007), claim the participatory, river-basin approach of the WFD is strengthening local non-state actors and drawing in other actors like farmers (Röhring 2003), private actors (Kaika & Page 2003) or regional planners (Carter 2007). As a result, actors without democratic legitimation could be gaining influence (Bruns 2007). Although these issues of power redistribution are frequently highlighted there exist only few contributions that systematically examine how actors position themselves in these new configurations through (multi-) scalar strategies that transcend scalar levels and dimensions. A very obvious and straight-forward multi-scalar strategy is to strive for the leadership of the newly created institutions at the river basin scale in order to maximise influence or to act as intermediaries between the core actors at upper and lower scales (see Medd & Marvin 2007). But multi-scalar strategies are more prominent in practice. Particularly actors that fear a loss of influence due to the implementation of the WFD s provisions attempt to protect their sphere of interest through campaigns on multiple scales and levels (Asquer 2009; Bruns 2007). A very prominent measurement in this respect is the opening of representations in Brussels by local authorities or non-state actors, which try to exert influence on European decision-making processes in order to gain power in water policy issues. In this way local authorities were already involved in the drafting process of the WFD (Kaika 2003; Kaika & Page 2003). The scalar strategies of the European Commission are also discussed in the WFD literature as it pursues a scalar double strategy: while the Commission on the one hand seeks contact with local stakeholders on the river-basin scale to strengthen this newly institutionalised action level, it also extends ties to the national level, where institutions remain in charge of, thus challenging the principle of subsidiarity (Flynn 2000). As this discussion has made clear, shifts in power configurations are popular issues in the WFD secondary literature, although the emphasis clearly lies on the analysis of proxies such as institutional and interest configurations or on particular case studies. These however, are often led by evolved theoretical and conceptual frameworks, particularly but not exclusively

15 by scale theory, and show considerable analytical depth. Yet, power relations are often analysed as externally imposed without regarding the opportunities for some actors to transcend scalar boundaries, neglecting interesting avenues for actors to engage in multi-scalar strategies. Here, the WFD discourse lags rather behind the insights that the conceptual scalar literature has to offer. 4. Conclusion: A research agenda for the future As our analysis has shown, scalar issues and dynamics are of paramount importance to the European water governance regime, in particular due to the introduction of the Water Framework Directive. Issues of scale are addressed in the scientific discourse on the WFD in diverse ways and to different extents. Examining the WFD discourse with the analytical categories of approaches to scale (conceptualisation, dimensions and issues), normative criteria, state-society relations and power relations, a number of observations emerge: Curiously, we find that almost all contributions to the WFD secondary literature approach issues of scale and level from a very similar conceptual understanding. Scalar conceptualisation is hardly explicitly reflected, but scales are mostly perceived as naturally given, based around jurisdictions or river basins. Only implicitly, with the discussions of institutional consequences of the recently added river basin scale, do constructivist notions of scale resonate in the debate. The main scalar issues addressed by the WFD secondary literature centre around the problems of fit/misfit of the new natural river basin scale with the established politicaladministrative scales as well as questions of the appropriateness of specific scales or levels for water management. The problem of scalar misfit is also taken up in the discussions about normative criteria and scale. Resulting from the misfit of the newly introduced river basin authorities and the pre-existing territorial structures (which co-evolved with democratic legitimacy chains), accountability gaps are suspected because hydrological governance scales a priori lack the standard procedures for generating legitimacy. Regarding effectiveness, new misfits may occur because of boundary problems between the water management realm and related policy areas. Other issues in this category deal mainly with variations of the democratic dilemma that stress the tension between legitimacy and effectiveness of policies. The discussion on participation and scale focuses on the question of the appropriate level for participatory planning as well as the consequences of the misfit of administrative and natural scales for participatory processes. The dynamics of power configurations initiated by the WFD are addressed frequently from different perspectives; while some focus on the reorganisation of institutions or interests to approach the topic, others directly analyse shifting power relations in specific contexts. Few authors have highlighted multi-scalar strategies as yet. Returning to the conceptual scale discourses outlined in section 2.2, we find strong consistency between the literature directly on the WFD and the broader conceptual debates on scalar and multi-level governance issues. The appropriateness of scales for specific policies as well as the emergence of new, task-specific institutions tailored around specific problem dynamics are important topics in the multi-level governance and participatory governance